1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff provided a loan to the Defendant with a total of KRW 20 million on or around September 29, 2006, and KRW 50 million on or around November 29, 2006, with interest rate of KRW 7.2% per annum and due date of repayment on or around December 31, 2007.

However, the defendant paid 300,000 won interest per month to the plaintiff by March 28, 2007, and the principal and interest have not been paid until then.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages from March 29, 2007 to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the purchase fund for the sowing plantation, but the said money was donated without any condition to the Defendant, which had a relationship with the Plaintiff at the time. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to complete payment of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the said money constitutes commercial bonds since the Defendant borrowed the money as the reserve fund for the business of the sowing plantation.

However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit from November 29, 2006 to around November 201, 2015, which had been nine years since the Plaintiff paid the said money to the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 50 million was completed five years after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period for a commercial claim of KRW 50 million.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff paid 20 million won to the defendant on September 29, 2006 and 30 million won on November 29, 2006 by each cashier's checks to the defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

B. However, in light of the facts without dispute, Eul’s statements and images as to evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant recognized by the overall purport of the pleadings, the circumstances leading to the payment of the said money, and the circumstances after the payment, etc., the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to view it as loans, as alleged by the plaintiff.